'Should we switch to proportional representation?' poll discussion

tp306

PR removes the link between the MP and the constituency. Who will represent your local needs when you are voting for a party?
Issues where I live include the proposed overnight closure of the local fire station. In the campaign 2 of the main candidates stood against this whilst 1 (who lost heavily) was in favour. This link would disappear with PR.
Furthermore the chance of an independent candidate winning vanishes. Somebody standing on a single issue (hospital closure for example) could not win a seat. I'm not sure of the figures but I doubt Caroline Lucas for the Greens would have got in either.
Simply put, PR removes your local voice in Parliament.
I'm not saying First Past the Post is the answer but we all need to think very carefully about what we want our MP's and democracy to stand for before we rush PR in.

Gareth_Lazelle

tp306 wrote: »

PR removes the link between the MP and the constituency.

Not to belabour the point, but see posts:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=32742139&postcount=72
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=32739415&postcount=66
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=32728573&postcount=45
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=32719753&postcount=44

For explanations of why this is not be the case for PR, and why it can even be construed as a problem for FPTP,

Simply put, some forms of PR remove some MPs from a constituency link. Offhand I can't think of a PR-variation that totally removes any local MP - so no matter what you should have a local MP of some sort,

(i.e.: All constituencies have an MP (sometimes more than one), but not all MPs have a constituency - for some forms of PR)

adouglasmhor

tp306 wrote: »

PR removes the link between the MP and the constituency. Who will represent your local needs when you are voting for a party?not with STV
Issues where I live include the proposed overnight closure of the local fire station. In the campaign 2 of the main candidates stood against this whilst 1 (who lost heavily) was in favour. This link would disappear with PR.
Furthermore the chance of an independent candidate winning vanishes. Somebody standing on a single issue (hospital closure for example) could not win a seat. I'm not sure of the figures but I doubt Caroline Lucas for the Greens would have got in either.they could with STV
Simply put, PR removes your local voice in Parliament.
I'm not saying First Past the Post is the answer but we all need to think very carefully about what we want our MP's and democracy to stand for before we rush PR in.

There really needs to be a full debate on what form of PR or what other modifications to the system and boundaries are needed to ensure better representation for all voters. It's not just PR or FPTP, there are more options and flavours to think about.

Gareth_Lazelle

adouglasmhor wrote: »

There really needs to be a full debate on what form of PR or what other modifications to the system and boundaries are needed to ensure better representation for all voters. It's not just PR or FPTP, there are more options and flavours to think about.

And it is becoming more and more apparent that explaining exactly how the different forms work (and their pros and cons) will be critically important before any referendum is held... (there is sooooooo much misinformation and misunderstanding),

Dave_Gould

alex871uk wrote: »

PR is a step in the right direction, but just like FPTP, marginal voters (albeit in parliament rather than constituencies) will decide the outcome. It's much easier to bribe floating politicians than floating voters so the outcomes could be less democratic.

Interesting point and choice of language but I think my variation on STV addresses it:

In Ideal Majority STV, the party that wins the most seats is given a majority by artificially boosting their candidates who lost by the least. Marginal voters, of either type, are therefore not given a look in at this point.

Does pure STV address it? It returns the 2 'best' candidates from a group that would include 2 Tories, 2 Labour, 1 or 2 LibDems, a Green, a UKIP, a BNP etc via preferential and transfer voting.

Typically, the 2nd winner is determined by distributing 2nd place votes roughly equally from the winner and the candidates with the lowest share. One could argue that those voting for the joke & fringe candidates first get a disproportional influence with their 2nd choices.

Should also add that the Greens would get a boatload of MPs with STV (eventually, maybe only a few initially) and immediately with any pure PR system.

There will still be too much business interference (donations) in politics and most MP's are from wealthy, unrepresentative backgrounds. It's a shame that in this era our voice has to be filtered through any party at all, we could vote on issues directly using technology like this. (Imagine if we had a say in the Iraq war or the bank bailout?)

Very good points. The first is undoubtedly true but (for what good it will do) there will be a register of lobbyists according to the coalition agreement.
The second would produce a more selfish, but less corrupt country. Switzerland is the example here.

busabus

This question is a little flawed and I won't be voting. I would have liked to have seen more options.

See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8644480.stm for a nice breakdown of the different systems.

Simple proportional representation is not great as only the parties chose who ends up in parliament. That kind of happens already as they nominate who is standing where, but with the current FPTP system the ultimate vote falls to the people and allows constituencies to get rid of candidates who are bad. Of course then Salford votes in Hazel Blears and we wonder why we bother.

FPTP would probably work better if there wasn't this wasted vote madness, "tactical" voting syndrome, and hung parliament scaremongering. Vote for what you believe in fools!

None of the parties want simple PR but instead favour STV or AV. They both have positives and negatives and this vote would be far more interesting (and educating!) if it included those options.

antonia1

For those interested in the actual "fairness" of the various voting systems, new scientist did an article recently testing the major voting systems using maths and proper logic. Aparently nore of them are actually "fair".

Personally, I'd like to keep the constituency link with FPTP for the House of Commons, and true proportional representation for the House of Lords. We have two houses of parliament, why not combine two voting systems and get the best of both worlds. Constituency links AND no wasted votes.

alduncan

Surely AV is the way forward to a system which is fairer but less likely to result in a hung parliament?

Gareth_Lazelle

alduncan wrote: »

Surely AV is the way forward to a system which is fairer but less likely to result in a hung parliament?

Question is this: Is a hung-parliament better for the country than strong (but wildly varying) governments?

Is it better for the populace (and therefore government) to compromise on the basis that consistency (and slow changes in direction) are better for the county in the long-run? (You may want drastic changes right now, but that is the result of the wildly varying governments - it may not be so much the case after a hung parliament, because they will have made fewer extreme decisions),

While compromise doesn't always mean that you get exactly what you want, it also means we all get something that we want (which seems like a much more grown-up approach) - and we have to accept that we aren't all economists who can judge economic policies on their merits, so maybe a consensus of opinion is more likely to lead to positive results?

Dave_Gould

This is turning into a very interesting thread.

antonia1 wrote: »

For those interested in the actual "fairness" of the various voting systems, new scientist did an article recently testing the major voting systems using maths and proper logic. Aparently nore of them are actually "fair".

Does fairness mean direct democracy or does it mean a compromise based on the proportionate representation of viewpoints?

Either way it's quite low down on the list for me.

I'd rather have someone like the Dalai Lama running the country and I don't care if 80% of the country fundamentally disagree with him.

Personally, I'd like to keep the constituency link with FPTP for the House of Commons, and true proportional representation for the House of Lords. We have two houses of parliament, why not combine two voting systems and get the best of both worlds. Constituency links AND no wasted votes.

It's been repeatedly stated that STV is both PR for all except fringe views and retains the constitutuency links.

Anyone who actually follows the House of Lords knows it does a hugely much better job than the House of Commons. Why is this?

4 reasons:
1. Despite all the patronage, there are people in there who are smart enough to recognised bad legislation when they see it and are capable of making a (small) fuss.
2. The time allotted to discuss Bills in the House of Lords is not shortened aka guillotined purely to bulldoze through corrupt & totalitarian legislation as it is in the House of Commons.
3. The House of Lords is balanced. Labour & the Tories have roughly equal seats by design and so no party can bulldoze things through.
4. A significant portion of the House of Lords is non-partisan.

Yes, reform is needed but its not urgent. Electing the House of Lords will seriously damage #1 and #4 - it's a big mistake. Plus the electorate simply won't take it seriously, cf local & Euro elections.

There are 2 problems with the House of Lords:
1. Hereditary peers - ironically, these are actually elected, by non-hereditary peers. Perhaps this model could be used to eliminate party members who sold their souls or perhaps bought their way into the House of Lords - whilst cutting down the numbers. Similarly, perhaps the House of Commons should elect its executive in this way.
2. Patronage - the nomination of new peers should be removed entirely from partisan Government. Of the many ideas I've heard of, the best by far is to have juries elect them. They would be instructed by a committee similar to the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee as to the needs of the House of Lords (or Senate as it should perhaps be renamed). Instead of politicians who betrayed their conscience & electorated getting in, many little known experts in law, science, finance, IT, civil service would take their place.